She is not talking about the feminism that my fellow contributor, David Shedlock, suggests in a post a couple of days ago. David writes:

Though some of this is bothersome (women can “do it all”, gender isn’t an issue), the thrust of feminism is not equal rights. It is the overthrow of God’s natural order. The reason the killing of unborn children and the promotion of contraception is so central to feminism is because it is a rejection of the differences between men and women. It is also why feminism promotes acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle, and rejects bans on women serving in combat.

Perhaps the word “feminism” is hopelessly broken and so thoroughly co-opted it just needs to be scrapped. Amy Siskind of The New Agenda suggests that feminism should be replaced by a “pro-women” movement that can be embraced by conservative men and liberal Democrat like herself:

The construct is divisive, proactively exclusionary and opening hostile towards women of different ideologies. Achieving gender equality is impossible in a framework where some of women are viewed as less equal.

Fortunately, there is another option. A new "pro-women" movement led, initially, by women on the right. The movement is inclusive, current, and refreshingly focused on supporting women. And why should we care whether it’s Republican or Democratic women (or both) who lead us to gender equality? After all, our historical women leadership is richly diverse in political beliefs and value systems.

David wants to link feminism historically (though he doesn’t come right out and say it) with just the likes of Margaret Sanger, Betty Friedan, and Gloria Stienem glossing over figures like Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. They were notable women who not only pursued suffrage (which was an equal rights issue), but who were also pro-life.

David points out one interview with Katie Couric (one in which you get a snippet of an interview that lasted several hours). He then says she didn’t sign any prolife legislation as Governor. I shouldn’t need to remind David that Alaska’s Legislature had to send her a bill before she could sign it. She backed a parental notification law that stalled in committee, and then she backed that same measure as a ballot initiative which passed.

He brings up the Alaska Supreme Court nomination that was controversial which I handle in detail here, but let me say a couple of things about that. For starters she was only able to choose from the choices given to her by the Alaska Judicial Council – period. Secondly both choices she received were liberal and pro-choice so neither choice, in terms of life were ideal. I know some have suggested that she fall on the sword and resign in protest. She could have done that, but what would have been gained? Governor Parnell would have been faced with the same choice. She chose what she determined to be the best choice looking at all issues involved and what was currently before the court – namely natural resources issues. Regardless of what some pundits may say, governing is difficult.

Since it looks like she is seriously considering a presidential bid… we should ask her (and any candidate) tough questions, but let’s be fair when considering her public record and not link her to the pro-abortion crowd simply because she uses the term “feminist.”

Then there is the crux of David’s argument regarding her comments on election night:

There are still the Neanderthals out there, who pick on the petty little superficial meaningless things like looks, like whether you can or can’t work outside of the home if you have small children. All those type of things where I would so hope that at some point, uh, those Neanderthals, will evolve into something a bit more, um, with it, a bit more modern, and a bit more understanding that, yeah, woman can accomplish much…”

Then David wrote:

I am not suggesting that women cannot enter politics or that wives are to be subject to men other than their own husbands. What I object to is Palin’s willing to adopt the moniker “feminist” and suggest that men and women who believe mothers should stay home with their children are “Neanderthals” picking on “petty little superficial meaningless things”. She then says that we should “evolve”, “be with it”, “be a bit more modern”, and that “women can accomplish much”.

Who is she talking to? Who believes women can’t accomplish much? I take issue with the last phrase because she contrasted it with working in the home, raising small children. That is accomplishing much!

David is reading into her words. I find it ironic that he is criticizing a woman who was a stay-at-home mom for years for attacking stay-at-home moms. She wasn’t debasing the role that those women play, but rather addressing the criticism that females candidates will often receive – that she received in 2008.

I’m generally complementarian in my theology. I do believe in a husband-headship in the home. I also believe that some of us have misunderstand what that means. Guys often like to quote Ephesians 5:22 which reads, “Wives, submit to your husbands, as to the Lord.” Often forgotten is Ephesians 5:21 which says that we are to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Then guys are told later in v.25 that they are to love their wives as Christ loved the church. How did Christ love the Church, He died! So it is a sacrificial love that guys are to have for their wives. Putting her needs before his own, serving her, and leading her toward a deeper relationship with Christ.

It doesn’t mean the guy is a dictator. It doesn’t mean that a woman can never work outside of the home (though I think parents should try to avoid putting their kids in daycare). It doesn’t mean that a woman can’t exercise leadership in the civil arena. Some people do pigeonhole women’s sole purpose as just child rearing. When I read about the Proverbs 31 woman that isn’t the picture I see. I see a wise woman who is industrious both at home and in the community.

David rightly says, “I am not suggesting that women cannot enter politics or that wives are to be subject to men other than their own husbands.” That’s great, but criticism that some level toward women in politics is not based on complementarism, but chauvinism. That is who she is addressing.

Looking at the fruit of Sarah Palin’s life you can see that she honors and respects her husband. She doesn’t hate men as some feminists do. She relies upon her husband for wisdom and advice which is pretty well documented. So I don’t see the marks of the feminist that David is talking about.

Is it pretty well documented that the Planned Barrenhood candidate was pro child killing. I know the other was liberal on environment issues, but where do you get that he was also pro-child killing?

“I know some have suggested that she fall on the sword and resign in protest.”

If both were indeed pro-child killing she could have chosen not to appoint either candidate, forcing the commission to make the appointment, consequently her hands would have been clean in the matter. No resignation was necessary.

I will also be happier if she clarifies her position on don’t ask- don’t tell.

She could have, but then they could have ended up with the nominee who was worse on the issues that was currently facing the court. That is abdicating your leadership. Governors have multiple issues that they have to deal with. You and I don’t so it’s pretty easy to criticize; it’s much harder to lead.

Regardless there would have been a new pro-choice Supreme Court justice on the bench.

I’m sure if she does run somebody will ask her about DADT, if not maybe we’ll get the opportunity to :).

It isn’t abdicating when given only the choice of evils to choose none of the above. What if liberals kept turning down pro-life justices on the US Supreme Court offered by President Palin. Does she give in and send then one that will get through even though the one she sends believes in child killing? As long as conservatives give in, we will continue to get bad choices.

I say send a pro-lifer up there until he or she is accepted, even if the courts have to rule with 8 justices, or 7, or….

My scenario would be more accurately portrayed if I assure you that the Justices she is sending up are otherwise conservatives. And if you want to add that important gun control or other issues are about to appear before the Supremes, go ahead. It doesn’t change anything. Child killing is still child killing.

You are talking apples and oranges David. Alaska had the Missouri Plan where she didn’t have the freedom to select whomever she wanted. The Federal plan she does.

It is abdicating your leadership. Like I said, a Governor also has to have concern about other issues as well. The council could have nominated not only somebody who was pro-choice, but who was also anti-resource development. Then it would have been even worse.

Now if I were her, I would have pushed for a Constitutional amendment to end the Missouri Plan or at the very least legislation to diminish the influence of the Alaska Bar Association. However, she was dealing with a pretty hostile legislature at that point.